Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2017 [1].

Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the rarer half dollars in the series, which was authorized almost by chance. It did give another opportunity for the only woman to design more than one classic commemorative coin, Laura Gardin Fraser, the first woman to design a coin (some years earlier) to display her skill. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Usually when I get to your articles a bunch of folks have been by, but this is looking a little lonely. Taking a squiz now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coin was designed by Laura Gardin Fraser, and on its obverse depicts Dr. John McLoughlin, who was in charge of Fort Vancouver (near present-day Vancouver, Washington) from its construction in 1825 until 1846. - sentence is a bit long and has a run-on "and" it'd be good to eliminate if possible.
The coins sell for at least in the hundreds of dollars today, depending on condition - aayyy, the "for at least in" sounds a bit weird to mine ears. I know what you're trying to say though and should be an easy tweak...
link "Great Plains"
He and Senator Wesley Jones, also of Washington state, in May 1924 introduced legislation in their houses of Congress for a half dollar commemorating the centennial of Fort Vancouver. - the "in May 1924" sounds odd where it is - I think it'd flow better after either "legislation" or "Congress"
Johnson realized that such a simple amendment might not result in a coin being issued, and returned to the House floor soon thereafter, asking that the bill be reconsidered, so he could couch his amendment in the same phrasing as for the other two coins. - long sentence. recommend splitting
link quorum
Only 50,000 of the authorized mintage of 300,000 was coined "were coined"?

Looks fine otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've got those things, though you may want to take a second look at the one ending the lede as I wasn't thrilled by what I came up with. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what I would do is, "The coins can sell for hundreds of dollars, depending on condition"

In any case, looks alright so support on prose and comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That might imply to some that they can sell for less, though. I'll keep working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Thank you. I'm trying to ground the reader in something more familiar. I don't say when it became the Oregon Territory, so it's what happened to it later. Oregon Country is unnecessarily vague. --Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed our coverage, I think "Oregon Country" will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
Thank you for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt. Just working my way through this article, which seems very interesting! One comment so far:

  • The lead mentions that Fort Vancouver is near Vancouver, Washington, but I didn't spot any explicit mention of that in the article (although Vancouver, Washington is discussed a couple of times without anything about it being close to the fort). Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moishe. Thanks. I've made that clearer and sourced it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three more comments:

  • Lead: "Due to the low number of surviving pieces, the coins are valuable today." Is this definitely stated clearly enough in the body of the article? It says they were scarce in 1925, then lists a bunch of values until the present, then that today they are worth between $300 and $975. I presume from the context that this is possibly a high price range compared with other fifty-cent pieces, but someone else might presume that such prices aren't unusual for old coins.
Something worth several hundred dollars is, I think, of itself valuable. I'm open to suggestions. I did not mean by comparison with other commemorative coins and such is not stated.
  • Background: "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Washington state, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon, and is today in Vancouver, Washington." Thank you for adding the clarification from my comment above. But the new version mentions twice in the same sentence that it is in what is today Washington state. I wonder if there's a good way to combine the two, for example by saying "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Vancouver, Washington, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon."
  • Legislation: As you know, I did a copy-edit at the end of this section and changed "Coolidge" to "President Calvin Coolidge". But then I noticed in the previous sentence it talks about "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon urged the president to veto it". I wasn't sure whether that was referring to the president of the USA or possibly the president of something else. If it's the former, I guess "President Calvin Coolidge" should actually be moved to the previous sentence.

Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, sorry to be so slow in responding. I've done those. Thank you for the thorough going over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • What makes Flynn Authoritative Reference a high quality reliable source? According to World Cat, its only held by one library...
He is a well-published author on numismatics, see here.
Leaving this out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

There are four images, all of which are properly licensed. It seems the John McLoughlin image still requires alt text. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's done, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per my review "disclaimer" here. There are two minor points I leave to your discretion on whether you think you should change it or not:
  • I'm not sold on the phrase "Johnson tacked on language", but it may be an Engvar thing
  • Ditto for "McLoughlin was what government there was", which I think could be more elegantly phrased.

That's is, another fine coin article you've given us. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm inclined to keep both as is, and it is an EngVar (and possibly legislative) thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fort_Vancouver_Centennial_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=792024048"